Iowa Reconsidering Abstinence-Only Funding

At a state policy briefing on Thursday morning, Iowa legislators and other state officials were asked to end federally funded abstinence-only sex education in the state. The move would make Iowa the 17th state to reject Title V abstinence-only funding.

Rep. Mary Mascher, a Democrat from Iowa City, sponsored and floor managed a bill during the 2007 session that required all sexual education taught in accredited Iowa schools to be medically- and scientifically-based. Signed into law last spring, the bill did not necessarily put an end to abstinence-only sex education teaching in Iowa, but it did ratify standards and guidelines that directly conflict with those associated with federal funding streams.

"There's been discussion on whether or not we should be accepting these federal monies at all because the criteria for abstinence-only programs at the federal level is not medically accurate," said Mascher, who is sponsoring Thursday's policy briefing. "The standards that [organizations] have to abide by for the federal money do not call for scientifically-based information. In essence, [the guideline conflicts] would prevent schools from getting those monies. They could still teach abstinence-only sexual education, but they can't use the federal dollars in order to do it."

Representatives from FutureNet, the Iowa Network for adolescent pregnancy prevention, parenting and sexual health, are scheduled to speak at the briefing and to call for the complete refusal of Title V abstinence-only education funding. Iowa currently receives roughly $319,000 from the program, which is administered by the Iowa Department of Public Health. Prior to Bethany Christian Services of Northwest Iowa being awarded a $600,000 non-matching grant last September from the Administration of Children, Youth and Families (part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services), the Title V monies were the only such federal abstinence education funding in the state. Nationally, Title V provides more than $40 million a year in matching funds to states.

"Iowa must end this poor fiscal and public health policy now," said Rhonda Chittenden, executive director of FutureNet. "There is no reliable evidence to date that these abstinence-only programs impact the long-term behavioral outcomes at which they aim, such as the delay of sexual initiation and reduction of adolescent pregnancies and STI/HIV infections."

"I've been a classroom teacher for the last 30 years," Mascher said. "I taught sex education programs in the Iowa City School District for most of those years. One of the things that I think is critical in anything that we do with kids is being honest and accurate. If we expect to have credibility, I think it is extremely important that information we give them be scientifically and medically accurate.

"It comes down to best teaching practices. We know that scare tactics don't work with young kids and that, if anything, it has a very limited kind of effect. What you want to do is give them good information, and be able to help them with decision-making skills. Those are the problem-solving skills that we want kids to be able to develop at an early age so that when they get to the age where they are making those kinds of choices, they're making good choices. Of course, we would like all kids to be abstinent until they are ready and mature enough to be able to handle those types of relationships."

Doug Kirby, an adolescent health researcher commissioned by the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy, will present his findings on the effectiveness of abstinence-only programs versus comprehensive sex education in reducing pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections in adolescent populations. Of the 48 programs included in his study, the only programs that had strong evidence for delaying sexual initiation were comprehensive programs.

"We know that a lot of the programs that are out there are very much religious based and may not have a scientific base to them," Mascher said. "That leads to doubts on whether the information is accurate, and whether it will withstand the test of time in terms of helping kids make good choices. We examined a lot of curriculum and found that some of them are using scare tactics. Some of them are using outdated information. Things are changing so rapidly in the medical world and I think one of the things we want is to be able to give the best information possible and the most current."

Abstinence only education made me wait until my wedding night to have sex. It served me well! Amen for abstinence only!

I would’ve been devastated if I had given my gift away before that night!!!!!!!!!

SAVE SEX FOR MARRIAGE! It is better!!!!!!!!!!! SAFER!

http://thecurvature.com invalid-0

Personally, my vagina isn’t a gift. It belongs to me, it always has, it always will, and who I decide to share it with isn’t up to the government.

If abstinence until marriage was right for you, congratulations. But you make it sound like “waiting until your wedding night” is the ultimate goal for all sexual expression. It’s not. Acting like your personal life experience applies to everyone is conceited and dangerous. Comprehensive sex ed doesn’t teach kids that they should have sex — in fact, it also teaches abstinence. Comprehensive sex ed treats teenagers like people, promotes safety and gives them options. Abstinence-only non-sex ed does what you’re doing now — imposing your personal views on the rest of the world and not caring about the consequences.

invalid-0

First of all, abstinence only programs are notorious for grossly misinforming teens about sex. I myself just read a an article from “The Heritage Foundation” web archives claiming that condoms don’t work to prevent HIV 31% of the time. Are you kidding me??????

These programs are just trying to control and brainwash teenagers at the time when they should be learning as much as possible so they can learn how make important decisions THEMSELVES. By taking that away from them, you are not empowering a generation of pure, virtuous adults, you are breeding ignorance and robbing teens of their ability to learn how to make rational and informed decisions which will ultimately empower them more. This absitenence-only program is fear-based and superstitious. It should be called ignorance-only education. Telling teens “Just trust us, and don’t do it, okay??” is not going to work any more than the “Just Say No” drug campaign. When the hell have kids ever just taken the adults word for it?

Non-partisan research (ya know, research that emphasizes the FACTS, not just playing with numbers to further some religious, conservative agenda) shows that comprehensive sexual education ultimately works better.

Sex is put so high on a pedestal, some people act like it is the single most important event in your life, and the only way you can truly show someone you love them is by giving them your ‘purity’. I find this extremely annoying. I also find that this is mostly targeted towards girls beause how can we be truly loved by a man if we are dirty tramps who have already let someone destroy our bodies? When I had sex at 16, I didn’t feel like i was “giving” anything away. I just had sex. We used a condom. I understood all sides of the situation, and I made my choice. No tragic scenario here, just a guy and a girl who wanted to f*ck. THIS IS REALITY PEOPLE. Teenagers are going to have sex. People naturally want to have sex. It’s called human nature. I don’t believe it should be taken lightly at all (contrary to how i worded the above parapgraph to make my point) but it is not this miraculous event where the heavens open up and god judges you on whether or not you fooled around with Bobby Joe or your husband first.

Luckily I have always been informed about sex, so I didn’t end up sterile from mutual-masturbation, no herpes covering my entire body deforming me and turning me into an outcast, oh and thank GOD i knew that AIDS can be spread through sweat and tears, now i know to stay away from those FAGS at the gym!!!!!

Ever thought that the reason you people think early sex causes suicide and depression? Because of the guilt trip you lay on teens (esp. girls) that they are ruined if they have pre-marital sex. You say don’t have sex. But when teens do have sex (an inevitable fact) you discourage the use of all types of birth control and then you condemn girls when they do something about it (get an abortion) Its all totally *ss-backwards.